The Court of the LXV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Additional Charge LXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-67), presided over by Sri Hemanth Kumar C.R., B.A.L., L.L.B., delivered a judicial order on April 5, 2024, allowing an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3120/2024 extended pre-arrest bail protection to two petitioners—Sri Nagalinga Swamy N. (Accused No. 3) and Sri Raghavendra T.R. (Accused No. 4)—in connection with Crime No. 344/2023 registered by the Jayaprakash Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru. The petitioners faced apprehension of arrest for alleged offences punishable under Sections 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.) and 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Factual Matrix and Prosecution Allegations

The criminal proceedings originated from a private complaint lodged by a female complainant concerning a historical family property in Bengaluru:

• Background of the Property: The complainant alleged that her husband’s relatives, Yellamma and Junjappa, had no children, and her late husband, Muniraju, had cared for them. Her father-in-law passed away in 1969, and Yellamma subsequently executed a registered Will in favor of the complainant’s husband Muniraju (who passed away in 2010). The disputed property—Site No. 112/1 measuring 36×45 feet—was originally purchased by Junjappa in 1941–42.
• Alleged Creation of False Documents: The complainant alleged that with the intention to usurp and knock off the property, the petitioners and other co-accused created a false adoption deed, a fabricated death certificate for Junjappa, and a fraudulent building plan, which they submitted to a court while attempting to alienate the property.
• Police Registration: Based on the complaint, the Jayaprakash Nagar police registered Crime No. 344/2023 under Sections 467 and 468 read with Section 34 IPC.

Details of the Petitioners

• Petitioner No. 1 / Accused No. 3: Sri Nagalinga Swamy N., aged 51 years, son of R. Ningaiah, residing at No. 63, 1st Floor, 1st Cross, 1st Main Road, 1st Block East, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560011.
• Petitioner No. 2 / Accused No. 4: Sri Raghavendra T.R., aged 51 years, son of T.K. Raman, residing at No. 1192, 18th Main, Near J.P. Nagar Club, J.P. Nagar 2nd Phase, Bengaluru – 560078.
• Legal Representation: Sri S.G., Advocate

Submissions Advanced by the Parties

On Behalf of the Petitioners

1. Innocence and False Implication: The defense maintained that the petitioners were entirely innocent and that the complaint failed to disclose any specific allegations or direct overt acts connecting them to the offences under Sections 467 and 468 IPC.
2. Bailable Nature / Non-Capital Offence: Counsel emphasized that the petitioners are law-abiding citizens, permanent residents of Bengaluru, and that the invoked offences do not carry a mandatory sentence of death or life imprisonment.
3. Readiness to Cooperate: The petitioners expressed complete willingness to abide by conditions and cooperate with the ongoing police investigation.

On Behalf of the Respondent (State)

1. Grievous Nature of Offence: The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the anticipatory bail plea by filing written objections, asserting that the allegations of creating forged adoption deeds and judicial documents involved serious property fraud.
2. Risk of Tampering: The state contended that granting pre-arrest bail at the investigative stage could lead to witness tampering, destruction of evidence, or abscondance.

Judicial Findings and Legal Reasoning

Upon examining the case records and rival submissions, Judge Hemanth Kumar C.R. recorded definitive findings on Point No. 1:

1. Punishment Threshold: The court noted that the offences alleged under Sections 467 and 468 read with Section 34 IPC, though serious, are not punishable with death or life imprisonment.
2. Investigative Stage: Observing that the matter was still under investigation, the court held that pre-trial guilt could only be established during a full-fledged trial.
3. Safeguarding Prosecution Interests: Concluding that the apprehensions raised by the prosecution regarding witness tampering and flight risk could be effectively met by imposing stringent and specific conditions, the court ruled in favor of granting anticipatory bail.

Final Pre-Arrest Bail Order and Conditions Imposed

Answering Point No. 1 in the affirmative, the Sessions Court allowed the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The court directed the Jayaprakash Nagar police to release Sri Nagalinga Swamy N. (Accused No. 3) and Sri Raghavendra T.R. (Accused No. 4) on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 344/2023, upon executing a personal bond for ₹50,000/- with one surety each for the like sum, subject to the following conditions:

1. Court & Investigative Attendance: The petitioners shall appear before the court on all dates of hearing and shall cooperate fully with the investigation.
2. Investigative Call: They shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon for the purpose of investigation.
3. No Tampering: They shall not tamper with evidence or threaten, induce, or allure prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever.
4. Non-Recidivism: They shall not involve themselves in any criminal activity.
5. Address Proof: They shall produce valid documentation verifying their permanent address.